Bad Theodicy: Process Naturalism and the Problem of Evil

In my new book, The Death of Supernaturalism: The Case for Process Naturalism, I detail the growing skepticism around belief in the existence of God. I make the case that atheism will continue to be seen as an attractive alternative to theism as long as the case for belief remains unadapted to modern objections.

Perhaps no issue looms larger than that of the problem of evil. Indeed, evil is no less present, pernicious and perplexing in the modern world than it has ever been.

This blog series is an attempt to review and respond to many of the traditional theistic responses to the problem of evil.

But First, Let's Review

In sum, the typical formulation of the problem of evil goes something like this:

1. If God is omnibenevolent, then God desires to eliminate all evil.

   
   

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

   
   

3. Evils occur.

   
   

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or simply does not exist.

My aim is to evaluate each theodicy using two key criteria:

1. Is the response logical (consistent, valid, sound)?

2. Is the response livable (satisfying, applicable, practical)?

In my last post, I evaluated William Hasker's open theism approach, finding logical but not livable.

Today, I will turn to the theodicy of process naturalism. This is the perspective I have found most palatable in overcoming the problem of evil.

What is Process Naturalism?

Process naturalism is a framework that rejects supernaturalism (defined as the idea of a divine being who can interrupt and intervene to change the world's fundamental causal processes). Process naturalism reframes God as a relational and persuasive Presence, embedded within the natural world.

Though supernaturalism is rejected for the process naturalist, it is important to emphasize belief in God is not. In fact, process naturalism can serve as an apologetic framework for a faith not bound by the formulas and definitions of classical theism, which make God seem incompatible within a modern scientific worldview.

There are several moves the process naturalist makes in order to achieve such a framework.

1. Theism vs. Panentheism -

In a theistic structure, God is separate from and transcendent above creation. God exists independently from the universe and is typically seen as actively involved in its governance. The circles representing God and creation (as illustrated above) are distinct. However, overlap occurs as God chooses to interact with and intervene in the world.

In a panentheistic paradigm, God not only transcends the world but encompasses and interpenetrates it. As the word pan-en-theism indicates, "all" is "in God". God is necessarily and inextricable entangled in the universe, as a part of the natural order of things.

It is important to distinguish panentheism from pantheism. On pantheism, God is ontologically identical to the universe. Panentheism, however, maintains a distinction between the two. God is greater than the universe and exists beyond it.

2. Omnipotence vs. Amipotence -

In classical theism (as well as open theism and molinism) God is seen as omnipotent. In this view, God has unlimited power, being capable of doing anything that is logically possible to do. While philosophers of religion have often deemed omnipotence a great-making attribute of God, many opponents reference its origins in Greek and Roman mythology and point out that the term is not derived from the Christian scriptures. (1)

In place of omnipotence, Thomas Jay Oord has proposed usage of the term amipotence. He conceptualizes amipotence to be the "loving power" of God and makes the case that love is inherently un-controlling. (2) In a framework of amipotence, God governs through persuasion, not coercion, as coercive control would be counter to the divine nature.

An amipotent God chooses to woo, and not whip, creation into order. God guides it along the way, engendering the freedom necessary to respond to God's essential relationality.

3. Creation Ex Nihilo vs. Everlasting Creation -

Classical theism posits a God who creates out of nothing. This thought follows naturally from the conception of a deity who is maximally powerful, able to anything that can logically be done.

Opponents of creation ex nihilo, such as the process naturalist, prefer to emphasize God's ongoing activity in sustaining creation. They are quick to point out the philosophical issues raised by claims of creation out of nothing (see below) and are further bolstered by their inability to formulate a coherent, scientific worldview. Indeed, where is the predictability in nature when its laws can be ordained or overridden at will?

In search of a satisfying alternative to creation ex nihilo, many dialectics have been devised. I gravitate simply towards creatio continua, as homage to God's ever-proceeding work. I also like creation ex chaotica, as a reference to God's teleological task of bringing for order out of chaos, as well as the Genesis 1:2 idea of forming viability from the void.

With the idea in mind of a panentheistic, amipotent Creator, who works to formulate order from disorder, the process naturalist is able to build out a very different theodicy than those reviewed in my previous posts.

Process Naturalism's Theodicy

The desire to find a satisfying theodicy has been the driving force of my theological journey for decades. Though it has sometimes taken me years to move throughout the various camps, I eventually left them all after no longer finding them able to present logical and livable answers to the burning question I have posed in the introduction to each of my recent essays: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil occur?

Indeed, on classical theism, molinism, and open theism, God ultimately either orchestrates or allows evil's occurrence. In all three approaches to the theodicy problem, the observer is left with the task of finding the greater good that will salvage God's omnibenevolence from its imminent philosophical demise. It was a burden, like many who ultimately reject the God of classical theism, I was no longer willing to shoulder.

A New Way Forward

Traditional solutions to the problem of evil tend to attack premise 1 (see above), that an omnibenevolent God desires to eliminate all evil. This has seemed the only reasonable approach to a logically sound argument in which each other proposition is deemed impenetrable.

Process naturalism, on the other hand, leaves premise 1 untouched. An omnibenevolent God should desire to eliminate all evil. This is always the trajectory of God's good work within creation.

Process naturalism affirms the argument from the problem of evil. But, instead of conceding that God MUST be both all-powerful AND all-loving, or not exist at all, its solution is to jettison omnipotence.

Here is my bold statement: On process naturalism, a God who cannot single-handedly control outcomes is not responsible for the evils that occur in the world.

Process naturalism allows the believer to conceptualize God as one who is always working to master, mitigate and minimize the harm, suffering and injustice of the world.

What's more, when evil does occur, it is not because God simply allows it to happen for the purpose of some mysterious greater good. Here are a couple concepts I have found quite freeing to consider, in light of embracing a process naturalist worldview:

1. There is no greater good behind the holocaust occurring and the tortured deaths of millions of Jews.

   
   

2. There is no greater good behind the rape of my friend or the murder of my loved one.

   
   

3. When evils occur, God is not the reason (either as One actively or passively involved).

   
   

4. God weeps with the suffering, holding no secret agenda.

Importantly, when evil happens, God does not sit back with hands helplessly tied. Rather, God is our ultimate partner in the fight against evil...loving, luring, and offering new possibilities to bring good from every tragic bend in the proverbial road. The framework of panentheism allows us to conceptualize God as active and imminent in every situation. God is not removed from the struggle, but inextricable entangled within it. God will never leave us and never forsake us. Ontologically speaking, God can't!

The Importance of a Continual Creation

The final barrier I had to overcome in search of a satisfying theodicy is reframing my conception of initial creation. Regardless of justifications previous espoused, if God creates from nothing, God must bear responsibility for that which comes into being.

On the other hand, if creation is everlasting, God can be seen as the One who brings order from chaos.

Further, creation ex nihilo goes hand in hand with omnipotence. If God can bring something out of nothing, why can't God conjure a barrier to stop the playful child from crossing the busy street, or manifest a mountain to delay my arrival to the building about to burn into flames?

I have found the framework of process naturalism to be the only one in which I can find fulfilling answers.

Bringing it Together

This blog series has been in investigation in the most common solutions offered to the theodicy problem.

For myself, I have found process naturalism to be the only system to provide both a logical and livable answer to the question of why evil occurs in the of the existence of a good God.

Please comment below and share your thoughts with me. I hope these posts have been as helpful to you as they have been a valuable exercise personally for me.

(1) see Thomas Jay Oord. The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence. Grasmere, ID: SacraSage Press, 2023. In Chapter One of this text, Oord examines biblical language (e.g., El Shaddai, Sabaoth, Pantokrator) and argues that “almighty” is a mistranslation of these terms.

(2) Oord, 119-150.